Jharkhand HC Dismisses Husband’s Divorce Appeal, Directs Rs 15 Lakh Deposit For Daughter’s Education And Expenses

The appellant-husband sought dissolution of the marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and desertion.

The Family Court dismissed the suit, finding cruelty unproved and the statutory period for desertion unmet; the husband appealed.

The parties’ daughter was born in May 2007, and the husband admitted that he first saw her in October 2007.

The High Court also considered the respondent’s pending application for interim maintenance for herself and the daughter.

Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits divorce on proof of cruelty, assessed in the circumstances of each case; mental cruelty requires consideration of the parties’ conduct and its effect on the spouse.

The Court relied on Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105, Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate (2003) 6 SCC 334, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742, and the illustrative principles in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511.

Section 13(1)(ib) requires desertion for a continuous period of at least two years immediately before the petition; desertion entails both separation and animus deserendi—the intention permanently to abandon the matrimonial relationship, without consent or reasonable cause.

For the maintenance application, the Court referred to the parties’ affidavits filed in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.

The Court found no proved conduct by the respondent amounting to cruelty.

The respondent’s complaint against the appellant and his family could not, by itself, establish cruelty; it had not been dismissed as false or unsubstantiated, but for non-prosecution after requisites were not filed.

The allegation that the appellant’s parents died from shock caused by the complaint was unsupported by evidence.

On desertion, the petition was filed in June 2008, less than two years after the parties last lived together in October 2007.

The respondent’s reply to the legal notice expressly stated her desire to resume conjugal life, undermining any inference of animus deserendi.

The appellant’s assertion that the October 2007 visit was only to collect documents did not cure the absence of specific pleadings and sufficient evidence establishing desertion for the statutory period.

As to maintenance, the Court directed a deposit of ₹15 lakh for the daughter’s education and other expenses, without prejudice to her right to seek maintenance under applicable law.

It disposed of I.A. No. 702 of 2021 by directing the appellant to deposit ₹15 lakh with the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, for transfer to an account opened in the minor daughter’s name through her mother.

The deposit was without prejudice to the daughter’s right to claim maintenance; any later maintenance order must take the deposit into account.